Darrell P. March

The applicant sought death benefits following the death of her spouse in a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the insurer objected to the applicant testifying because her counsel failed to provide a witness list in advance, contrary to a pre-hearing agreement and Rule 41 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator ruled that the applicant could testify, noting that the insurer was prepared for cross-examination, claimed no prejudice, and procedural fairness required allowing the applicant to present her case fully.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her evidence at the hearing and her self-reporting to medical experts.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert reports because they relied on her inconsistent narrative and lacked clinical testing details.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the applicant suffered a marked psychological impairment and significant physical impairments, rendering her catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded various medical benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and the costs of several assessments.

Claims for a driver desensitization assessment, a worksite assessment, and a special award were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The insurer sought its expenses after successfully defending the applicant's claim in its entirety.

The applicant argued that no expenses should be payable or that they should be reduced because the insurer unreasonably attempted to revive a preliminary issue regarding time limits after having settled it.

The arbitrator agreed that the insurer's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing.

As roughly one-third of the hearing time was devoted to the preliminary matters decided against the insurer, the arbitrator awarded the insurer two-thirds of its claimed legal expenses, plus full disbursements and HST, totaling $16,144.23.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant did not attend in person.

The arbitrator denied the insurer's motions to dismiss the application based on the applicant's absence and failure to comply with production orders.

However, the arbitrator granted the insurer's motion to exclude the applicant's arbitration brief and witness list because they were served late without extraordinary circumstances.

The arbitrator denied the applicant's subsequent request for an adjournment.

As the applicant presented no evidence to prove her claim, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded expenses of $8,033.71.

The applicant was involved in three motor vehicle accidents in 2010 and 2011 and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including income replacement benefits and medical benefits for various chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that he provided virtually no evidence regarding his pre-accident employment or the extent of his injuries.

The arbitrator relied on the insurer's medical assessments, which concluded that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not warrant treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The insurer was awarded $4,000 in arbitration expenses.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were denied, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was entirely successful and entitled to its expenses.

Applying a 2:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time for a three-day hearing, the arbitrator fixed the insurer's expenses at $10,847.70, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, and ordered the applicant to pay this amount.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his third party claim for delay.

The third party, a dissolved corporation, had successfully moved to dismiss the claim arising from a 1990 oil spill.

The Court of Appeal held that under section 242(1) of the Business Corporations Act, a dissolved corporation has the capacity to defend an action and bring a motion to dismiss without first being revived.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant's delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and caused presumed and actual prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of an MRI examination from her insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

At the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator excluded the applicant's arbitration brief due to late service but allowed her to testify.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would exempt her from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's medical reports, the arbitrator concluded the injuries were minor.

The claims for medical benefits and the MRI cost were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant sought non-earner and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer initially conceded a limitations defence but attempted to withdraw the concession on the eve of the hearing; the arbitrator found this inequitable based on promissory estoppel.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the applicant failed to prove causation under either the 'but for' or 'material contribution' tests, noting the applicant's extensive pre-existing physical and psychological conditions from prior accidents and assaults.

The claims for non-earner and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The Insurer sought its expenses following an arbitration proceeding where all of the Applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed.

The Applicant did not participate in the expense hearing.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer was completely successful and therefore entitled to its reasonable expenses.

After adjusting the hourly rate claimed by the Insurer's counsel to the appropriate Legal Aid rate, the Arbitrator fixed the Insurer's expenses at $12,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, and ordered the Applicant to pay this amount.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

Years later, the insurer requested an examination under oath (EUO).

The insured attended but refused to answer questions regarding those benefits, arguing the request was out of time under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer suspended benefits.

The arbitrator found the insurer was precluded from requesting the EUO because it had already paid the benefits.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that the time limits in sections 35/36 apply only to the initial determination of benefits, and do not restrict the insurer's ongoing right to request an EUO under section 33 to determine continuing entitlement.

In an arbitration for statutory accident benefits, a dispute arose over which party bears the obligation to produce expert witnesses for cross-examination on their reports.

The arbitrator held that the party tendering an expert report as evidence is responsible for producing the author for cross-examination by the opposing party.

Consequently, the applicant was ordered to produce his three experts, and the insurer was ordered to produce its expert.

This costs endorsement followed the abandonment of three scheduled motions in an accident benefits and tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a minor plaintiff.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment dismissing aggravated and punitive damages claims, while the plaintiff had cross-moved for a declaration that the Minor Injury Guidelines did not apply and had also proposed an amendment to plead bad faith damages.

After the insurer delivered an OCF 9 confirming the claim fell outside the Minor Injury Guidelines and the plaintiff narrowed or abandoned his other positions, the motions became unnecessary.

The court held both sides had engaged in tactical gamesmanship that caused needless motion practice, and ordered costs in the cause rather than awarding costs to either side on the abandoned motions.

The Appellant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought ongoing post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a special award from his insurer.

The Arbitrator awarded IRBs for a limited period and denied the special award.

On appeal, the Appellant argued he was entitled to ongoing IRBs due to the insurer's procedural non-compliance with termination requirements and that he met the post-104 week disability test.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the IRB appeal, finding no error of law and affirming that procedural errors do not grant benefits in perpetuity.

However, the Delegate rescinded the denial of the special award, finding the Arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons addressing whether the insurer's continued refusal to pay IRBs was reasonable in light of new medical evidence provided.

The special award issue was remitted for redetermination.

The applicant insurer appealed an arbitrator’s decision concerning loss transfer reimbursement under s. 275 of the Insurance Act after paying statutory accident benefits to its insured following a motorcycle accident caused by the respondent insurer’s insured.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant insurer had grossly mishandled the accident benefits file and unreasonably paid substantial benefits, including delayed insurer examinations and excessive settlement amounts.

As a result, the arbitrator reduced the amount recoverable from the respondent insurer.

The court held that the arbitrator’s findings involved mixed fact and law and were entitled to deference unless unreasonable.

Finding ample evidence supporting the arbitrator’s conclusions, the court declined to interfere and upheld the reduced indemnity award.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' arbitration claims for accident benefits.

The applicants had repeatedly failed to attend examinations under oath, despite an earlier finding that they were required to do so and an undertaking by their counsel to produce them.

The arbitrator found that the applicants' ongoing refusal to participate in the claims process while continuing to advance their arbitration claims constituted an abuse of process.

The arbitration applications were dismissed.

The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses after successfully defending an appeal before the Director's Delegate.

The respondent claimed an hourly rate of $150 for its senior counsel.

The Delegate found the respondent was entitled to its reasonable appeal expenses as the wholly successful party.

However, applying Rule 78 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Delegate reduced the hourly rate, noting the $150 rate is restricted to insured persons, while insurers' counsel are subject to a lower cap.

The respondent was awarded $3,931.21 in legal expenses, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Appellant insurer sought a stay of an Arbitrator's order requiring it to pay income replacement benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits to the Respondent insured, pending an appeal.

The Director's Delegate denied the stay request, finding that under subsection 283(6) of the Insurance Act, a stay is the exception rather than the rule.

The Delegate held that the Appellant failed to establish that the pre-arbitration status quo ought to be preserved, noting that the appeal was restricted to questions of law and that staying the payment orders would constitute a hardship to the Respondent that outweighed any hardship to the Appellant.